Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

We should get a ruling today on assisted suicide. The Supreme Court will decide whether or not chronically ill and disabled people will be allowed to choose to die with doctor's assistance.

I'm all for it. Why shouldn't someone be able to make the decision to bring an end to their life.

Arguments for and against in this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-27922966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Im for it, as a luckily healthy person I cant imagine what its like to be in constant pain everyday so what right do I have to tell some one they cant die if they are suffering, we put animals to sleep to end suffering, why not people (and no im not comparing people to animals, just couldnt think of a better way to word it lol)

I'm very much for it. Also one of Sarah's best mates runs the charity Dignity in Dying and they're running a protest on the day the the bill goes to the house of Lords. Linky below if you're interested. You can also find it on Facebook if you want to share it.

http://www.yesuntiltheend.co.uk/submit-your-photo/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I follow them on Twitter. They seem well organised.

Having seen father in law go through a painful and undignified end earlier this year its the right thing to do to allow people to choose when their life should end so they can suffer no more.

NHS actually kept him alive for longer than they should by about 4 months and then when THEY decided there was no more thy could do, they stopped feeding him so ended his life anyway with him suffering in pain for about 4 weeks to the end. Very bizarre way of treating people.

Just announced the people involved lost their case to be allowed the right to choose their end.

Seems Government wants total control over absolutely everything about our lives.

Odd decision for this government, surely the NHS costs would drop accordingly if RTD was brought in, not that I'm implying they are heartless b*stards that are only interested in keeping public spending down you understand....

There is still a lot of influence from the church on this subject.

bbc news wrote:But five justices concluded they had the power to declare the current law breaches the right to a private life

I don't think this is the end of the process by a long shot.

Here's something I don't understand. Under the right circumstances a patient has the option of a DNR order, this is effectively the person stating to the medial profession that they wish to die. How is this acceptable yet the wishes of the people represented in these recent cases aren't ???

DNR means they've effectively died.

It's incredibly wrong. I really can't see what they're hoping to achieve by denying these people the right to elect their end.

It seems we are universally of the same mindset.?

I will make no secret of my agreement with all of the above, however.....

Is the primary (only sensible?) argument against this, that it puts us on a very slippery slope.?

I think one of the reasons why this isn't happening is because they see it as it could be open to abuse. Getting rid of a sick relative who has become a burden rather than good palliative care.

My fear will always be that after a diagnosis of a terminal illness I will lose the ability to end my life myself. I want to die at home and the thought of travelling abroad to do it is a definite no no..

I'd assist one of my family if they so wished and hope they'd do the same for me as well. Bugger the consequences. I can live with a spell in jail if that's what the law felt comfortable with . At least I would be happy in the knowledge that I've helped end the pain and suffering of a loved one.

My animals are never left to suffer and I can't see why I would let any of mine suffer if that is what they truly wanted .

I think as genuine cases have never been to prison then the law makers probably feel there is an option although it's whether the individual will take the risk.

BB, you've said exactly what I feel about the subject, unfortunately even a pre-signed document from the person in question requesting termination of life could have have been obtained with coercion from dependants or beneficiaries, the whole system could be open to abuse from the unscrupulous.

Yes I can see its flaws and unlike the majority of us there are a few who would consider the option if available to bump off a relative.

Maybe if a living will which gave people the option to video their wishes whilst in good health may make things a little clearer.

Certain stipulations that only the person can lay down.

I would do it and give to my doctor to place on file, if the need arose.

I think my ones would be if I can't do my own personal care as for me this would be humiliating. To be in a vegetative state is difficult as we know so little about what can be seen or heard so not entirely sure. If there is nothing and it's like being asleep then I'd probably stay alive just in case I did come out of it relatively unscathed, but who knows.

Thankfully at this moment in time my health is not too bad apart from age gaining momentum and bones not quite as good as they should be and hopefully when my ticket is drawn for the one way trip it will be quick and instant

Everything is open to abuse, deegee.

I can guarantee you that watching a relative die in pain with no dignity will change your mind.

And as i said earlier, NHS doctors decide anyway when you will die so why not let the individual concerned have their own say in it? What right does a doctor have to make that decision?

bb41 wrote: Maybe if a living will which gave people the option to video their wishes whilst in good health may make things a little clearer.

Please dont take this the wrong way as I am for RTD and agree with everything you say but for the sake of looking at it from both points of view I suppose the fear would be that I could make a video now saying If I am in an accident and left in a vegative state or locked in syndrome I would like the right for my Mrs to help me end it but If I am locked in what happens if I have changed my mind and then cant communicate it.

I would guess that would be there argument, someone who is in that condition, it is impossible to know what there actual wishes are and if they still believe what they said on video. I know thats not all cases as some people can still communicate in which case I do believe people should have the right to choose.

Just trying to look at it from both points of view

duke63 wrote:Everything is open to abuse, deegee.

I can guarantee you that watching a relative die in pain with no dignity will change your mind.

Sadly that is already the case Duke, I lost my Dad and Aunt to a disease that ate them alive and caused them to be in immense, constant, unremitting pain. I would very much like to have the opportunity to prevent the majority of that pain happening to me should the worst should happen sometime in the future.

I am aware that there appears to be an unwritten tolerance of genuine cases within the upper echelons of the Justice system, but I also suspect they are not just blindly refusing, I suspect that if a method of writing and implementing this that was 99.9999% abuse proof could be devised we might have a real shot at getting this onto the Statute book, the problem appears to be that at present no one wants to step up and say "Yes" and have the finger pointed at them when abuse is proved at a later date.

Itt all sounds straightforward until you deal with people with mental health issues then it becomes very complicated

Deegee wrote:

duke63 wrote:Everything is open to abuse, deegee.

I can guarantee you that watching a relative die in pain with no dignity will change your mind.

Sadly that is already the case Duke, I lost my Dad and Aunt to a disease that ate them alive and caused them to be in immense, constant, unremitting pain. I would very much like to have the opportunity to prevent the majority of that pain happening to me should the worst should happen sometime in the future.

I am aware that there appears to be an unwritten tolerance of genuine cases within the upper echelons of the Justice system, but I also suspect they are not just blindly refusing, I suspect that if a method of writing and implementing this that was 99.9999% abuse proof could be devised we might have a real shot at getting this onto the Statute book, the problem appears to be that at present no one wants to step up and say "Yes" and have the finger pointed at them when abuse is proved at a later date.

Apologies, deegee. I hope my post didn't come across too harshly as it was not meant in that way.

Perkles wrote:Itt all sounds straightforward until you deal with people with mental health issues then it becomes very complicated

Legal capacity - that is having the mind to make your own decisions - woudl certainly come into play. Those advocating the right to die are clear on that.

Both doctors must be satisfied that the patient has:

•A terminal illness (with a prognosis of six months or less to live).
•Mental capacity.
•Full information about their end-of-life care options.
•Ability to make a voluntary and informed decision free from pressure.

There would be a mandatory period of reflection after the medical examinations and before the patient receives the medication. A request for an assisted death could be withdrawn at any time.

http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assist ... afeguards/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;